By your logic, you don't know the difference between corporate & business taxes vs. income tax.
Child tax credits are refunds that you don't have to qualify for, whether it's income or filing status, etc.  Look up how tax credits differ from deductions.  Credits are direct payment amounts.  Deductions reduce your tax liability by some calculated amount.  Same animal, different name and difficulty in obtaining.
In a similar example, let's say you bought a child safety car seat.  The gov't subsidized the child seat manufacturer's BUSINESS.  By giving YOU a tax credit, it reduces the price YOU paid, but the RETAILER and MANUFACTURER  still got full price -- the price you paid before the tax credit.  So who benefitted?  You got a car seat for say $25 less, and the corporations and businesses sold a car seat for the pre-tax-credit price.  Might as well say the tax credit went to the businesses, and they passed that price on to you. 
But wait!  What if that car seat would have been $125 without the credit program?  Now the businesses can charge $150, and then you get "a refund" of the overcharge to the normal retail price via a credit.  Now who benefitted?  Just the business, not you.
Do you believe there were no baby products manufacturers lobbying to have a tax credit for their product paid to consumers?  The more the gov't pays you (or doesn't make you pay) by simply making a purchase, the better that industry does whether or not they raise prices.  Just increasing demand helps their bottom line. 
Who do you think the mortgage interest deduction was designed to help more:  Home buyers, or the housing industry?

My simple point was that tax break subsidies don't make something government owned.

There are plenty of whistleblowers who provided evidence that the bias is at corporate level.  All you have to do is believe what PEOPLE WHO SHOULD KNOW are telling us.  But, you prefer to believe Zuckerberg, who can't recall a single high-profile Liberal being censored the way the New York Post was.
Simple. 

I don't prefer to believe any single source. Listen to all sides, consider that all sides have their own potential reasons for over-stating or under-stating something, then do the best to find the truth somewhere in all the cris cross of bias. It is easy to question the motives of Zuckerberg but we must also apply the same level of skepticism to people who are former employees claiming wrongdoing. But again, note that I never said Zuckerberg's explanation was the only true thing, I specifically stated there were many different reasons.

There are Terms of Service people agree to.  Use FB's massive resources to ensure no anonymous accounts are created.  Require proof of identity.  The IRS uses a credit report for verification to access tax info.  Would not be hard to do that.

Then enforce the policies consistently and without bias. 

The policies should be written to encourage cordial and non-abusive behavior and language.  Putting in policies to forbid misgendering and posting OPINIONS on political stories is wrong.  So what if I can't corroborate a given story?  If I want to base my opinion on it, it should not be banned as "potentially inaccurate."

Draw a line between format and content.  Control the format so everyone is treated equally and can be relatively civil, or users suffer the consequences.  But allow all the content as long as it doesn't cross the line of being criminal or against LIMITED ToS prohibitions: porn, graphic violence, etc.  I'd recommend they provide a separate forum for things that adults can opt into, such as footage of actual beheadings, etc.  If that's what people need/want, censoring doesn't stop it.  But, they can implement safeguards so minors don't have easy access and you can only share with others in that optional forum.

It takes some work, and exceptions will need to be handled as exceptions.  FB trying to make a one-size-fits-all bunch of filters is not working as intended.  Or, if it is, then it's just wrong.

I have seen reports that Facebook deletes thousands of fake accounts every day.

While I certainly disagree with the philosophy that Facebook has taken with regard to certain aspect of moderation. Take a policy about nudity for example. They can train AI to recognize an image of a bare breast and it can get flagged and removed but the AI doesn't know whether that is a woman breastfeeding or not. They also have human moderators, I saw one report where employees were moderating the same types of photos and they would block photos of mother's breastfeeding because someone wrote a simple rule of no nudity. Policies grow increasingly complex the more you try to eliminate gray area where bias can creep in.

I certainly understand that it would be impossible to completely eliminate bias in their moderation. I still think that if Facebook continues on this model being more politically restrictive then it will hurt their business  to the point they will either correct or someone else will replace them. The free market and competition usually does a better job at this than government's hand.